should just add a clause to the contract that states "we reserve to right to do whatever we want in the best interests of protecting ourselves" and make every horse sign it. am i right? after all, if they sign it, it's on them and then we can make websites and stuff.

Whoooottt.Pocarr is a company like any other with the purpose of making money not to do charity overall. Stake/loan its basically the same- its a loan that has single purpose. If you owe money to bank, and suddenly decide that damn, i dont want to work anymore-what you just gonna write bank, that hey man i decided to never go to a job again so clear my loan"it was nice making business with you? .

great first post, analogy is spot on! staking and loans are basically the same thing! i stand corrected!

ok i was'nt gonna post this but how ever with complete utter bellends like this guy posting in here i decided i have to POKER is the only investment where inless you get stolen from you will always get you money back

INVESTMENT LETS just do some research the action or process of investing money for profit. every investment has risks .

now what pocarr want is a completely risk free investment witch is a loan at 50% of your profits and should you feel poker isnt for you and you quit you still have to pay back make up really make up makes investments so so +ev to anyother investment in the world if a company goes bust you think those investors get there money no but thats how poker investments are i mean thats how its always been but thats not good enough for pocarrr . pocarr want it so if the player feels he cant make enough money in poker and quits they want it classed as a loan with compound interest thus being 50% of profits . this is completely bang out of order really

Loan
a thing that is borrowed, especially a sum of money that is expected to be paid back with interest.

.invest
put (money) into financial schemes, shares, property, or a commercial venture with the expectation of achieving a profit.

Defo the same thing in case you are unable to define sarcasm this is sarcastic

Suppose that regardless of what's in the contract, the horse can claim he's quitting poker and automatically get out of further obligation. I think this is problematic for a few reasons:

It's difficult to verify that a player has actually quit poker. How would the backer know if the horse just creates an account on a different site and continues like normal?

For horses who do intend to quit poker, quitting isn't always black-and-white. From my experience, if you Sharkscope a player 6 months after they say they're quitting poker, they'll almost always have some games. According to the industry standard, how many games/hands do they have to play in a given time period before they go from owing nothing to owing full makeup? Are they allowed to become a live pro?

While it probably wouldn't be common, a player legitimately intending to quit could freeroll on a final stake. (Take profits while it's going well, and then truthfully say they're quitting at the first big downswing.)

As Monteroy pointed out, usually agreements to get paid $X when the stake ends don't go well for the backer. But putting stakers in a position where they're indefinitely monitoring the horse's online activity, and then trying to get paid old makeup months or years after the stake ended, isn't realistic and provides a concerning incentive to horses.

To clarify, I'm not saying that stakers should always demand full makeup from players who quit. I would always try my best to come to an amicable compromise with a player who talked their situation over with me. But players shouldn't believe they can say three words, “I quit poker,” and automatically be clear of any further obligation.

Let me give an unbiased opinion

First of all,

A contract that is signed, does not necessarily mean that parties are ALWAYS obligated to fulfill with what is agreed upon.
Some clauses might be 'unfair' to either of the parties, by what is 'common' in the specific branch.
Judges will take 'common' rules / expectancies in consideration before their ruling.

(In this case: is it fair for the backee to have the make up turned into a loan?)

A common and really simple example of a contract that is not binding is: a contract for an assassination.
Even when parties have signed to do so, the contract is void.

Another example of contract terms being unfair are terms that are unfair for the one who signs the contract.
Like signing for a contract that makes you pay 50% interest where the maximum by law is 14% (here anyways)

Contracts with unfair terms will be referred to as'unreasonable' and will be looked at by a judge as never to have existed in the first place.

In pocarrs contract, the term: make a site: xisathief, will be seen as an unfair / unreasonable term.


2nd:
Companies that give people loans have to meet really strict requirements by law. And have a permit to do so
One of them is making sure that people who get the loan do have the financial capacity to pay.
When the make up is converted into a loan, Pocarr will have to meet a LOAD of terms.

3th:
Companies that approach markets in other countries, will have to comply with the law of the specific countries.
It does not matter if the 'backee' (in this case) in country X reaches out to 'backer' in country Y.
Backer has to comply with the law of the country backee lives in.
(in my country and prob whole european law this means term 1 and 2 are already reasons for judges to rule against pocarr)

4th
Companies that approach 'markets' (backees) in different countries are obligated to make backees sign a contract
thats in backees native language. When you only let backee sign a contract thats in a foreign language,
while backee never went to that foreign country to sign it, the contract isnt legal.

5th
The xisathief term does not allow pocarr to make such a site, not even when backee agrees with this term.
Backee isnt even allowed to put his own ID on the internet (make it public). This is stricly forbidden by law.
Backee has a strong case against pocarr when they do make such a site.
Which can result in pocarr obligated by a judge to pay tens of thousands of dollars to backee.

Id like to add that even making things public as simple as an adress, zipcode, city, phone number etc. will already be categorized as 'careless handling of privacy-sensitive data. Which will be (without an ID being posted) enough for a judge to give companies a huge fine

all valid points, hence the importance of having a well designed process for selecting new horses, as well as building a relationship with the horse during the business endeavor so that compromises can be made when disagreements inevitably will arise in gray areas (aka not just going "this is in the contract, obey my law or suffer the consequences").

Speaking as someone who has been on both sides of the industry and has no current staking or stakee activity, I think I can give a very unbiased opinion.

A players make up only disappears when he is dropped. When someone says they quit, it should be respected that the person can longer face playing poker each day, and they should not and can not be forced to.

The player is in the wrong if he tries to play on new sites, under new names, or play live without this being expressed to the backer. If he is playing a new format etc live, his play can continue to be staked under standard staking agreements. If it was specifically expressed for the staking it was online only, then they may play live not staked is only time this doesn't apply.

A player can quit for 6 months or two years, but if he wants to come back into poker he must respect his make up and be backed if the stable still wants to back him.

It is a clear violation of human rights to expect someone who may be depressed,and no longer able to think clearly, who knows they need to get out of poker, rebuild their life etc, to tell them they are required to keep playing poker.

You can chat while they get their life going, see if they want to try and play 1 session a week at weekends etc that is staked. But no one running a stable has the right to tell someone to be playing a minimum amount of games with that persons precious time they have in their life.

You can set an amount for them to play and drop them if they fail, but you can not make someone be using their time for poker or pay their make up.

+1 couldnt said it better

Both Moshman and Jak made some excellent points on either side. While I do agree with Collin that a horse can simply claim to quit poker and it can be difficult to verify if they actually quit, I don't think that's reason enough to require them to pay back a stake.

Remember, a stake is supposed to offer the horse an opportunity to play in games he otherwise couldn't afford and the backer gets a significant cut of the winnings due to the inherent risk of the horse not making money in the games. If that inherent risk is removed, I'm not sure why a horse would ever agree to such terms when they'd be surely better served with a high interest, short term loan -- at least the loan shark wouldn't charge them for 50% of their winnings.

I suppose someone could argue 'Well, the horse DID agree to it. They signed a contract stating x' but if that x is unconscionable, it's not enforceable. As far as I know, the industry has always allowed the horse to quit poker while in MU and not be responsible for it. But loans during the course of the agreement should be fair game and if the horse returns, he needs to clear the remaining MU.

Sure, that's possible -- if they quit poker altogether. But under Pocarr's current arrangement, aren't they the ones freerolling?

I haven't fully thought this through, but it seems the most equitable thing to do is find the midpoint that makes the deal equally profitable for both the staker and backer, something like half of the remaining MU but of course that should be written into the contract.

I should've clarified that I wasn't writing specifically about Pocarr, but I believe the answer to this question for any stable is "No."

The reason it's not a freeroll is because the staker faces risk apart from the horse permanently quitting poker. For example, I've taken many writeoffs over the years from players who stopped winning. The horse (to my knowledge) was honest, followed the contract, and did nothing wrong. But for whatever reason they stopped winning at some point, so I let them out of the stake on good terms and took the full loss.

A staker would only have a freeroll if they put in their contracts something like:

"If staker ends the deal for any reason, horse immediately owes full makeup."

That would give a staker a freeroll at the horse's expense, but as far as I know, no stable has been quite that evil

In my days of being a staked player I often wondered about this topic quite frequently. Glad to see that the "elephant in the room" is finally having some light shed on it. I don't think it is feasible for a horse to 100% quit poker and be completely alleviated of any makeup. The obvious reason being that player A can get a stake and do a few profit chops. When he racks up 50k MU he can just say "I'm quitting poker now gg MU".(Essentially having a gambling freeroll).

That being said, there are clearly instances where things take a turn for the worst and it is best that a horse stays away from poker. When a horse takes on a stake he does not really anticipate the nut worst downswings possible and often has the mentality of "grind now in attempts to make $, and worry about how to pay bills if a 1 year downswing happens later". So, sometimes horses deal with extreme mental/financial/miscellaneous problems that mean they should never touch poker again. Perhaps deep down they realize that the games are way tougher than they were in 2013 and they don't possess the ability to be/become profitable any longer. (The climate has changed more than many would have anticipated).

In some cases (but not all), accepting a deal and not being able to fulfill your end of the agreement is a 100% display of poor character.

I think there must be some disincentive in place to protect the backer/the horse. Something along the lines of x% of MU must be repaid over y amount of time if a horse decides to prematurely end an agreement.

FWIW if some horse just reg'd 200 games/month and punted off or sat out they would be following their contract. I don't see any reason why if they did this a backer would keep staking them/ why they wouldn't drag their name through the mud in this thread.

So instead of respond to any of the points that totally shoot down your position you just post the website and say nothing here.. Your practises are shocking and i will be advising him to contact the search engines to get it removed.

https://www.google.co.uk/policies/faq/

Theft requires something to be stolen not for you to have a losing investment which is what you admit yourself. Seeing as you have gone full ****** will also post what rtinnion said to me on skype.


[01/11/2016, 00:46:30] Rob: its more of a deterrant, and yeah wouldnt stand up in court, but if people think they can just come freeroll us then quit, we're goign to do our best to ruin them if they do
[01/11/2016, 00:47:14] Rob: so when marcin applies for a job, we want their employer to google them and see this ****

He chopped close to $300k with you and u wan't to ruin his future chances while ahead 6 figures from him.

Hey all

I thought I would just give me 2 pence worth on this matter. As someone who I would like to think has seen a lot as a backer.

I will start by saying I can sympathize with Rob/Alex/Pocarr, what they/we do is extremely tough and very stressful. Of course there are lazy backing groups out there that don't put the work in, but they normally don't last for long. From what I can see Pocarr do put the effort in

I can see the skype conversation with Mike and Rob above and can see Rob saying he wants to ruin players that screw them over. The truth is if you run a backing group the correct way by putting tons of effort into players, supporting them at the tables and in real life. But they go and steal from you, this always seems like the best option to take.

I can see they have made a thief site on this player, but I am really struggling to see how it can be justified. He did not steal, surely it ends there. I have backed around 400 poker players through the years and made 4 of these sites. With the intentions to ruin these players, because I really helped them out in poker and in life yet they threw it back in my face and stole my money.

But how can the player in question be treated the same as them? I really don't get that. I also think every case should be judged differently ....

Of course we all have our rules/contracts. Should we stick to them no matter what? I don't believe so

I bend my rules all the time pending the case/player

You have a new player that is a problem from day one, breaks rules etc. He then quits in 25k MU. Of course you will deal with him as harsh as possible, ruin his poker rep etc (he is still not a thief though, btw)

Next player, he was great for most of the stake and made you a ton of money, but now has fallen on hard times and can not stick to agreed game etc. Do I deal with him the same? Of course not.

This is a tough spot for both parties. Both at one point have probably done a great job

pocarr were probably great/supporting backers

The player in question was probably a great horse (the night he chopped 300k I bet you told him that)

But at some point you have both become bad at what you do.

The player in question should/can still play 200 games per month at agreed lower ish stakes to grind make up lower. It won't be easy, but that's life and you did sign up to this deal.

Pocarr can not call this guy a thief and make a thief website, that is totally insane and wrong.

His poker reputation should be damaged I agree. But any future employer that googles his name will see that site. He basically won't get the job, which kinda screws him for life. I don't believe he deserves that

Good luck all I hope it works out. I can feel both parties pain

Industry standard does not override contract, Pocarr is right about that. If it's explicitly clear and horse agreed, doesn't matter what is standard.
However, contract to some extend needs to be reasonable, like consumer protection etc.

I think it's unfair and likely a bad deal to be staked by pocarr given some of their terms and what I've read in this thread, but if you agree to paying x% if you quit poker, you absolutely owe. If not specifically discussed, industry standard seems like the default imo barring special circumstances. But something like not watching x videos in a month means they can drop you and you owe full MU is unfair, and unreasonable so the former should be enforceable (even if arguably unfair) but later not. Also at least a couple cases of using the thief sites as blackmail in unreasonable spots is insanely out of line, company should get negative feedback for that - just because they don't scam or steal doesn't mean a company shouldn't be able to get neg feedback (they basically have if you look thru thread).

If a horse quits poker, as others said, imo they do deserve to be in this thread but don't owe (unless otherwise agreed, see above).

I mean clearly they are a business and if they want to do anything at all to max profits whilst staying with the rules they technically can, but obv not gonna gain popularity points in the community. Fwiw I'm quite friendly with one of the higher ups and absolutely have faith/respect in him and his ethics but yeah from the thread some of the overcall company decisions seem a bit dubious.. I would never recommend anyone choose them over competitors based on their liberal use of personal details/passport/etc and making the thief site as a weapon to blackmail etc. These things are very private and given in trust to ONLY be used for actual theft, not any case at all where they think they are owed for whatever clause in contract. They should get second unbiased opinions if the site is warranted.
Rob could have just not posted anything, contributed zero (prob minus for Pocarr really) with multiple posts

If someone quits poker forever (this is pretty rare..) then you have no interest in forcing them to play for what should be obvious reasons. Same goes if someone doesn't want to play in general. Obviously ppl can't angle this to escape Mu etc and in most cases reasonable horses (or people) should give good notice, offer some compromise etc, not just quit and say fu mu. But it's their "right" (which at min is super ****ty and deserves a place here).

I back and been backed by a lot of ppl:

As a horse, I would never just quit and leave the Mu as it is, would find some compromise, at least pay some buy out (def not 100pc, and almost def less than 50 depending on the amount). If things are going bad to to the point I'm considering quitting I would firstly do a lot to try improve my game/schedule/whatever to help it. I'd communicate with the staker my thoughts etc to figure things out.

As a staker, I would respect a horses right to quit poker - although would be a combination of picking bad horse, managing the situation poorly (not realising things are going bad, not being connected enough to horse etc, not helping horse get out of bad situation or even dropping earlier) if it happened. I'd expect them to do the same with some sort of compromise and also very good notice, "warnings" or mentions well in advance if they even consider it etc, not just one day say it out of nowhere.
If the horse handles it reasonably they would no way get in this thread. That would mean mentioning the thought of quitting, offering compromise and having good communication etc during the process, being willing to consider my input or help etc.

If they quit cause of sick job opportunity then not all of the above apply but (at least morally imo) they owe compromise absolutely. You can't just quit and escape Mu because of better opportunity (and you can't consider the Mu being "forgiven" as a pro of getting a normal job etc.

Regarding Marcin.

-We did more digging and found we gave him a $1065 loan in November 2015.
-We gave him time off at his request numerous times and for many months.
-He then stole money by playing thousands of dollars worth of off-stake games with our funds. We decided to continue with him.
-We paid $1,400 to Elliot Roe to have sessions with him and help turn things around.

Now he's quitting poker and we're asking for a repayment plan. We feel that's fair.

heh

In the Marcin case, I think its pretty clear Pocarr acted more then fairly.

They were allowing him time to get his life on track, and were even paying for sessions for him to work with Elliot Roe which I think is great in a environment where mental issues are present in many players.

It sounded at first like Pocarr were finding a reason to drop him and have Marcin owe full make up, but having heard they let players in need of a break have time off, and also pay for them to work on their mental game I think they are acting fairly.


PS Post the details before we make a judgement next time

What about all the other cases?

PS. Leave the pitchfork in the shed next time

I see why its Pocarr Vs all with that response.

PS. How did your WPT FT go?

Name: daviid

Making ridiculous posts on 2p2 negative feedback. Thinks instead of trying to settle disputes on a forum that we should sue everyone.

PS. daviid pls

Alex just give a straight answer to these questions please instead of cherry picking a few facts that suit your cause.

How much of the $24k u said your owed is from loans and playing off stake games with your money?

Far as i know that total is zero and the whole amount currently owes was played on the tables meeting your guidelines.

Yes he got a loan and made a mistake and played some offstake games then proceeded to grind it out and pay it back in full.

Not sure why something that happened a year ago and has been rectified has any bearings on the current situation.

Your problem is taking on any vamoo with a internet connection and got used to getting rolled every other week hence the million posts you have in this thread. Using your blackmail tactics against everyone because your worthless contract says you can is hardly just is it.

Maybe i shouldnt of refered him to you and be $125k lighter than you are now.

That would be silly because you wouldn't have got your 2% referral payment.

I have no idea what was paid back. It's added to makeup, we don't have separate loan/rolling numbers.

That's also irrelevant. It speaks to our ethics and character as well as his. When he was going through stuff we gave him time off, we continued after he stole money, we gave him a loan, we paid for him to work with Elliot Roe. It shows we weren't trying to "pull one over" on him. It shows we are fair.

We did all of this and then he decides he's going to quit and owes us nothing? And we are the ones acting unethically and with bad character?

What is the exact reasoning that he should owe us nothing?